Please read through the policy below to familiarize yourself with our common practices and rules.If you have any questions, suggestions, or complaints, please post them on the talk page.

Star Trek is fiction and, for various reasons, the "facts" of this fictional universe are often contradictory. As this is an encyclopedia of those facts, it is quite appropriate to note those discrepancies in Memory Alpha articles. There is an anomaly, however, that while difficult to define, is certainly undesirable: the Nitpick.

Contents

To decide whether a note on the contradiction of facts should be included, four properties must be evaluated: evidence, substance, neutrality, and placement.

How well established are the facts that contradict?

Is the note substantive? How big of a contradiction is it really? How important is it to the character, to the story, to the production, to Star Trek as a whole? Almost all information on Memory Alpha is trivial. Setting a threshold of "too trivial for inclusion" is difficult.

Does it make judgments about the contradiction? Is it critical of the writers or production staff?

Where should the note be placed? Most often (always) this will be in production POV sections or articles. It is not necessary to reconcile the disagreement with speculation. Simply state the facts then note the discrepancy with a background note.

Production decisions to change an established fact are noteworthy, especially if the note includes a reason (for example, the color of Klingon blood being changed to lavender in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country so the film would receive a PG rating.)

Established facts that are later contradicted by what may be a mistake are noteworthy (for example, Data's use of contractions, the number of decks on the USS Enterprise-E, the number of moons around Bajor).